Vrajanatha: The spiritual rays of the transcendental Krsna-sun and the spiritual atoms within those rays are non-different from the sun, yet at the same time they are eternally different from it. How can both these facts be true simultaneously?<o:p></o:p>
Babaji: In the material world, when one object is produced from another, either the product is completely different from its source, or else it remains a part of it. This is the nature of material objects. For example, an egg becomes separate from the mother bird once it is laid, whereas a person’s nails and hair remain part of the body until they are cut, even though they are produced from his body. However, the nature of cid-vastu is somewhat different. Whatever has manifested from the spiritual sun is simultaneously one with it, and different from it. The rays of the sun and the atomic particles in the rays are not separate from the sun, even after they have emanated from it. Similarly, the rays of Krsna’s svarupa, and the atoms in those rays – that is jiva-sakti and the jivas – are not separate from Him, even though they are produced from Him. At the same time, although the jivas are non–different from Krsna, they are also eternally different and separate from Him, because they have their own minute particle of independent desires. Therefore, the jiva’s difference and non-difference from Krsna is an eternal truth. This is the special feature of the cit realm. <o:p></o:p>
The sages give a partial example from our experience of inert matter. Suppose you cut a small piece of gold from a large piece, and use it to make a bangle. From the perspective of the gold, the bangle is not different from the original piece of gold; they are nondifferent. However, from the perspective of the bangle, the two are different from each other. This example is not a completely correct representation of cit-tattva, but it illustrates an important aspect: from the point of view of cit-tattva, there is no difference between Isvara and the jiva, whereas from the perspective of state and quantity, these two are eternally different. Isvara is complete cit, whereas the jiva is atomic cit. Isvara is great, whereas the jiva is insignificant. Some people give the example of ghata-akasa and maha-akasa (the sky in a pot, and the unlimited sky) in this regard, but this example is completely inconsistent with regard to cit-tattva.<o:p></o:p>
Vrajanatha: If transcendental entities and material objects belong to completely different categories, how can material objects be used as appropriate examples for understanding transcendental entities?<o:p></o:p>
Babaji: There are different categories of material objects, and the panditas of the Nyaya school consider them eternal. However, there is no such categorical difference between the cit (transcendental) and jada (material). I have already said that cit is the only reality, and jada is simply its transformation (vikara). The vikara is different from the original source, but it is still similar to the pure, original object in many respects. For example, ice is a transformation of water, and it becomes different from water through this transformation, but the two remain similar in many of their qualities, such as coldness. Hot and cold water do not both have the quality of coldness, but their quality of fluidity is the same. Therefore, the transformed object certainly retains some similarity to the pure object. According to this principle, the transcendental (cit) world can be understood to some extent with the help of material examples. Again, by adopting the logic of arundhati-darsana1, one can use material examples to understand something about the spiritual nature.<o:p></o:p>
Krsna’s pastimes are completely spiritual, and there is not even the slightest scent of a material mood in them. The vraja-lila described in Srimad-Bhagavatam is transcendental, but when the descriptions are read in an assembly, the fruits of hearing them are different according to the respective qualifications of the various listeners. Appreciating the ornamental figures of speech from the mundane perspective, those who are absorbed in material sense gratification hear it as a story of an ordinary hero and heroine. The madhyama-adhikaris take shelter of arundhati-darsana-nyaya, and experience the transcendental pastimes, which are similar to mundane descriptions. And when the uttama-adhikari bhaktas hear the descriptions of those pastimes, they become absorbed in the rasa of pure transcendental cid-vilasa, which is above all mundane qualities. The Absolute Truth is aprakrta-tattva, so how can we educate the jivas about it without taking help of the principles that I have just described? Can the conditioned jiva understand a subject that renders the voice dumb and stops the working of the mind? There doesn’t appear to be any method of explaining these subjects other than the principle of similarity, and the logic of arundhati-darsana1. <o:p></o:p>
Material objects can be either different or non-different from each other, so difference and non-difference are not visible in them at one and the same time, but this is not the case with paramatattva. We have to accept that Krsna is simultaneously different and non-different from His jiva-sakti and from the jivas in it. This bhedabheda-tattva (simultaneous difference and oneness) is said to be acintya (inconceivable) because it is beyond the limit of human intellect.<o:p></o:p>
1 Arundhati is a very small star, which is situated close to the Vasistha star in the Saptarsi constellation (the Great Bear). In order to view it, its location is first determined by looking at a bigger star beside it, then if one looks carefully one can see Arundhati close by.“Similarly, the madhyama-adhikari, although taking help from the senses and the language of the material world in describing the spiritual world, realizes and sees the aprakrta-tattva after having applied the anjana, ointment, of prema to the eyes of bhakti.” <o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Vrajanatha: What is the difference between Isvara and the jiva? <o:p></o:p>
Babaji: First you should understand the non-difference between Isvara and the jiva, and after that, I will explain their eternal difference. Isvara is the embodiment of knowledge (jnana-svarupa), the knower (jnata-svarupa), one who considers or reflects (mantasvarupa) and the enjoyer (bhoktr-svarupa). He is self-effulgent (svaprakasa) and He also illuminates others (para-prakasa). He has His own desires (iccha-maya), and He is the knower of all (ksetra-jna). The jiva, too, is the form of knowledge, the knower, and the enjoyer; he too, is self-effulgent, and he illuminates others; and he too, has desires, andis the knower of his own field (ksetra-jna). From this perspective, there is no difference between them.<o:p></o:p>
However, Isvara is omnipotent, and by dint of this omnipotence, He is the basis of all these qualities, which are present in Him in full. These qualities are also present in the atomic jiva, but only to a minute degree. Thus, the nature and form of Isvara and the jiva are eternally different from each other because one is complete and the other is minute; and at the same time, there is a lack of distinction between Isvara and the jiva because of the similarity between their qualities.<o:p></o:p>
Isvara is the Lord of svarupa-sakti, jiva-sakti and maya-sakti because of the completeness of the internal potency (atma-sakti). Sakti is His maidservant, and He is the Lord of sakti, who is activated by His desire; this is the svarupa of Isvara. Though the qualities of Isvara are present in the jiva to a minute degree, the jiva is nonetheless under the control of sakti.<o:p></o:p>
The word maya has been used in Dasa-mula not only to indicate material maya, but also to indicate svarupa-sakti. Miyate anaya iti maya, “Maya is that by which things can be measured.” The word maya refers to the sakti that illuminates Krsna’s identity in all the three worlds, namely, the cit-jagat, acit-jagat, and jiva-jagat. Krsna is the controller of maya and the jiva is under the control of maya. Therefore, it is said in the Svetasvatara Upanisad (4.9-10):<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Paramesvara is the Lord of maya, He has created the entire world wherein the jivas are bound in the illusion of material identification. It should be understood that maya is His prakrti, and He is Mahesvara, the controller of maya. This entire world is pervaded by His limbs.<o:p></o:p>
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
In this mantra, the word mayi is used to indicate Krsna, the controller of maya, and prakrti is used to indicate the complete sakti. His great qualities and nature are the special characteristics of Isvara; they are not present in the jiva, and he cannot attain them, even after liberation. It is stated in Brahma-sutra (4.4.17), jagatvyapara- varjjam prakaranasannihitatvat, “The creation, maintenance and control of the entire transcendental and inert world is the work of brahma only, and no one else.” Except for this activity in relation to the cit and acit worlds, all other activities are possible for liberated jivas. The sruti states, yato va imani bhutani jayante (Taittiriya Upanisad 3.1): “He is that by which all the jivas are created and maintained, and into which they enter and become unmanifest at the time of annihilation.” These statements have only been made in relation to brahma, and they cannot be applied to the jiva by any amount of manipulation, because there is no reference to liberated jivas here. The sastras state that it is only Bhagavan, and not the liberated jiva, who performs activities of creation, maintenance and annihilation. One may suppose that the jiva can also perform these activities, but this gives rise to the philosophy of many isvaras (bahv-isvara-dosa), which is defective. Therefore, the correct siddhanta is that the jiva is not qualified for the above-mentioned activities, even when liberated.<o:p></o:p>
This establishes the eternal difference between the jiva and Isvara, and all learned people support this. This difference is not imaginary, but eternal; it does not disappear in any state of the jiva. Consequently, the statement that the jiva is an eternal servant of Krsna should be accepted as a fundamental statement (maha-vakya).